Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases CHR subsidiary body
SUBCOMMISSION ON PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OPENS ANNUAL SESSION
02 August 1999
Share
MORNING
HR/SC/99/2
2 August 1999
High Commissioner for Human Rights Addresses Meeting
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson told the opening meeting of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning that the panel should continue in its role as catalyst and originator of some of the more imaginative initiatives undertaken on behalf of fundamental rights and freedoms around the world.
She went on to express special concern over continuing human-rights crises in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, adding that while Kosovo had received great attention from the international community and media, Sierra Leone had not.
The Subcommission also heard from Anne Anderson, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, who said the idea of “taking responsibility” should be one of the guiding themes of the session.
The Subcommission elected its officers, choosing Ribot Hatano,(Japan), as Chairperson, and Marc Bossuyt (Belgium), Mustapha Mehedi (Algeria), and Teimuraz O. Ramishvili (Russian Federation) as Vice-Chairpersons. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil) was elected Rapporteur.
Mr. Hatano said three problems needed urgent attention: the implementation of human-rights conventions by States that were Party to them; the impact of “non-State” actors on human rights; and the fair resolution of conflicts between two that went by more human-rights provisions. Despite commitments to the contrary, human rights were often prioritized, he said.
The outgoing Chairperson, El-Hadji Guisse, said the Subcommission was an open and flexible body, a forum where new ideas could be expressed, debated and crystallized in proposals which would eventually have an impact on other United Nations bodies active in the field of human rights. The winds of change had blown through the United Nations, he said, and they had blown through the Subcommission also, with positive effect.
A traditional moment of silence was observed in memory of the victims of all forms of violations of human rights in all regions of the world.
The Subcommission also adopted its agenda.
It will reconvene on Tuesday, 3 August, 1999 at 10 a.m. to begin consideration of the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries.
Statements
EL-HADJI GUISSE, outgoing Chairman of the Subcommission, said the winds of change had been blowing through the United Nations, and they had blown through the Subcommission also. Following plenary and closed meetings, the Subcommission had exposed its views. It was useful to look back on these views, since they showed that many achievements were to be credited to the Subcommission, not only in the matter of standard-setting, but also in the application of these standards.
The Subcommission was an open and flexible body, a forum where new ideas could be expressed, debated and crystallized in proposals which would eventually have an impact on other United Nations bodies practice in the field of human rights. Reforms needed to serve a purpose, and this had been accomplished. There was a need for all to reflect upon the usefulness of this work. The Subcommission should be more than an intellectual think-tank -- it should be a forum for the protection of human rights.
The work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had enabled the United Nations to function. Despite their sometimes negative comments, they had made important and positive contributions to the furthering of human rights.
MARY ROBINSON, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said she regarded the Subcommission as having had an important role in expanding the human-rights activities of the United Nations. The new title reinforced the relevance of the role. The word "think tank" had been somewhat overused. However, the Subcommission was regarded as a think tank in the proper sense -- it was a body that applied itself to examining the big issues of human rights in detail and made recommendations which influenced and shaped the debate on how best to protect human rights. In its time, the Subcommission had been both a catalyst and the originator of some of the more imaginative initiatives that had been undertaken. The expertise which its members brought to bear was invaluable. The intellectual output of the Subcommission could contribute in a real way to the work of the Office and to the championing of human rights generally.
Governments representatives and delegates from the UN family and international organizations were welcome attenders at the deliberations of the Subcommission. The input of NGOs at the Subcommission was valued, and was seen as an indispensable part of the task of promoting and protecting human rights. The year that went by since the Subcommission last met, had seen many abuses of human rights around the world. The pity was all the greater since the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only a few months ago. These sombre events supported the view expressed last year that the anniversary was an occasion to be marked rather than celebrated.
Two places should be singled out for mention because the scale of human-rights abuses perpetrated there was so massive, namely Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Even now, the truth of what had happened was still unfolding; each day brought new revelations and new horrors. And the cycle of violence could be far from over in both places. What had to be contrasted was the extent of international attention paid to each. The first received enormous international and media attention, the second suffered from a lack of international attention and resources. The first was the crisis in Kosovo, which was reaching its worst phase at the same time as the Commission on Human Rights was taking place here in Geneva. In view of the magnitude of the problem, human-rights officers were redeployed to gather information about violations across had established field operations just across the borders from Kosovo. There had been regular reports to the Commission.
The second place was Sierra Leone. That country stood between the conflict and the post-conflict stage and was seeking ways of coming to terms with terrible violations of human rights which had taken place over a number of years, particularly since January of this year. The extent and cruelty of the violence there was deeply shocking. Immediate international attention was urged to help Sierra Leone overcome the legacy of its conflict and re-establish a culture of human rights. In particular, the Office of the High Commissioner pledged support for the decisions to set up an independent national human-rights institution and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Office would continue to engage with Sierra Leone in the post-conflict period by making available experts to assist in the establishment of these two institutions and to help with technical cooperation in other ways.
The Subcommission had a very important part to play. The Subcommission had recorded some impressive achievements which had showed that it could be a vital engine of the development of the human-rights activities of the United Nations, in particular in the field of standard setting. An example was the draft resolution on the rights of indigenous peoples which was now pending before the Commission on Human Rights. The Subcommission had also played an important role in preparing the basis for the creation of thematic mechanisms of the Commission. The Subcommission was the originator of the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of information and expression, on the independence of the judiciary, on religious intolerance and on racism. The establishment of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances as well as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention could be traced to the Subcommission.
RIBOT HATANO, Chairperson of the Subcommission, said the first problem to be addressed was the implementation of various human-rights conventions. The United Nations system as a whole, including the Subcommission, had in the past been very successful in setting standards in the field of human rights. In reality, however, the conventions had not been satisfactorily implemented, and States parties had not complied fully with their provisions. Examples of this were the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that on Torture. Children’s rights were frequently overlooked still, and torture was systematically practised today by 134 Governments, many of which were parties to the Convention against Torture. It was imperative to promote and secure the full implementation of existing human-rights instruments both by Governments and non-governmental groups in the years to come.
The second problem was related to “non-State” actors in international society. The contribution made by NGOs, notably those having consultative status with ECOSOC, was enormous. They were the main source of information about human-rights violations in various countries and regions. Not only the Subcommission but the United Nations as a whole would have to depend even more upon NGOs in the future. However, some questions remained to be discussed and settled as soon as possible. Big private industries and enterprises, many of which were “transnational”, should be recognized as new “non-State actors” in international society, in parallel with traditional NGOs, since their cooperation, and sometimes their restraint, was indispensable to the solution of human-rights problems.
A third problem was to minimize the conflict between human rights themselves. It was often said that there could be or should be no “priority” among human rights. In fact, however, a conflict occasionally occured between two or more human-rights provisions. It was foreseeable that this sort of conflict would take place more often in the future. There was a need to find the ways and means to solve this touchy problem of “priority” or even “hierarchy among different human rights”. Much work, in many areas, remained to be done.
ANNE ANDERSON, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said those who were in Geneva were truly the privileged few. The millions of people whose lives were lived out in pain and poverty were a kind of invisible presence in the room, reminding everyone of why they were here and the seriousness with which the Subcommission’s work needed to be approached.
The terms of her invitation to speak today were quite explicit. The resolution adopted by the Commission invited the chairperson to address the Subcommission on the debate which had taken place at the Commission. There was not an extensive debate. Four governments spoke and there were seven NGO interventions. While valid and thoughtful points were made by a number of contributors, the rather short debate meant that the Commission did not have the thorough and detailed exchange that might have been beneficial to the Subcommission. However, even if the general debate was rather thin, the
resolution adopted on the work of the Subcommission was a cogent and substantive one. Any perceptive reading of this resolution would indicate that a mixed message was being sent. On the one hand, there was genuine recognition of what was being achieved and the efforts being made by the Subcommission to improve its work. On the other hand, it was fairly clear that the Commission felt there was significant scope for further improvement.
The Subcommission no doubt had its own sense of guiding themes for this session. But perhaps the idea of taking responsibility could have some application here, too. All the various parts of the United Nations human-rights machinery had their different and distinct roles -- the task for everybody was to try to do the right thing within the relevant area of responsibility. It was a task that needed both dedication and discipline -- two qualities that were not always easiest to reconcile. But that was the effort required of everybody if human rights causes were truly to be served.
HR/SC/99/2
2 August 1999
High Commissioner for Human Rights Addresses Meeting
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson told the opening meeting of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning that the panel should continue in its role as catalyst and originator of some of the more imaginative initiatives undertaken on behalf of fundamental rights and freedoms around the world.
She went on to express special concern over continuing human-rights crises in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, adding that while Kosovo had received great attention from the international community and media, Sierra Leone had not.
The Subcommission also heard from Anne Anderson, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, who said the idea of “taking responsibility” should be one of the guiding themes of the session.
The Subcommission elected its officers, choosing Ribot Hatano,(Japan), as Chairperson, and Marc Bossuyt (Belgium), Mustapha Mehedi (Algeria), and Teimuraz O. Ramishvili (Russian Federation) as Vice-Chairpersons. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro (Brazil) was elected Rapporteur.
Mr. Hatano said three problems needed urgent attention: the implementation of human-rights conventions by States that were Party to them; the impact of “non-State” actors on human rights; and the fair resolution of conflicts between two that went by more human-rights provisions. Despite commitments to the contrary, human rights were often prioritized, he said.
The outgoing Chairperson, El-Hadji Guisse, said the Subcommission was an open and flexible body, a forum where new ideas could be expressed, debated and crystallized in proposals which would eventually have an impact on other United Nations bodies active in the field of human rights. The winds of change had blown through the United Nations, he said, and they had blown through the Subcommission also, with positive effect.
A traditional moment of silence was observed in memory of the victims of all forms of violations of human rights in all regions of the world.
The Subcommission also adopted its agenda.
It will reconvene on Tuesday, 3 August, 1999 at 10 a.m. to begin consideration of the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including policies of racial discrimination and segregation, in all countries.
Statements
EL-HADJI GUISSE, outgoing Chairman of the Subcommission, said the winds of change had been blowing through the United Nations, and they had blown through the Subcommission also. Following plenary and closed meetings, the Subcommission had exposed its views. It was useful to look back on these views, since they showed that many achievements were to be credited to the Subcommission, not only in the matter of standard-setting, but also in the application of these standards.
The Subcommission was an open and flexible body, a forum where new ideas could be expressed, debated and crystallized in proposals which would eventually have an impact on other United Nations bodies practice in the field of human rights. Reforms needed to serve a purpose, and this had been accomplished. There was a need for all to reflect upon the usefulness of this work. The Subcommission should be more than an intellectual think-tank -- it should be a forum for the protection of human rights.
The work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had enabled the United Nations to function. Despite their sometimes negative comments, they had made important and positive contributions to the furthering of human rights.
MARY ROBINSON, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said she regarded the Subcommission as having had an important role in expanding the human-rights activities of the United Nations. The new title reinforced the relevance of the role. The word "think tank" had been somewhat overused. However, the Subcommission was regarded as a think tank in the proper sense -- it was a body that applied itself to examining the big issues of human rights in detail and made recommendations which influenced and shaped the debate on how best to protect human rights. In its time, the Subcommission had been both a catalyst and the originator of some of the more imaginative initiatives that had been undertaken. The expertise which its members brought to bear was invaluable. The intellectual output of the Subcommission could contribute in a real way to the work of the Office and to the championing of human rights generally.
Governments representatives and delegates from the UN family and international organizations were welcome attenders at the deliberations of the Subcommission. The input of NGOs at the Subcommission was valued, and was seen as an indispensable part of the task of promoting and protecting human rights. The year that went by since the Subcommission last met, had seen many abuses of human rights around the world. The pity was all the greater since the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only a few months ago. These sombre events supported the view expressed last year that the anniversary was an occasion to be marked rather than celebrated.
Two places should be singled out for mention because the scale of human-rights abuses perpetrated there was so massive, namely Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Even now, the truth of what had happened was still unfolding; each day brought new revelations and new horrors. And the cycle of violence could be far from over in both places. What had to be contrasted was the extent of international attention paid to each. The first received enormous international and media attention, the second suffered from a lack of international attention and resources. The first was the crisis in Kosovo, which was reaching its worst phase at the same time as the Commission on Human Rights was taking place here in Geneva. In view of the magnitude of the problem, human-rights officers were redeployed to gather information about violations across had established field operations just across the borders from Kosovo. There had been regular reports to the Commission.
The second place was Sierra Leone. That country stood between the conflict and the post-conflict stage and was seeking ways of coming to terms with terrible violations of human rights which had taken place over a number of years, particularly since January of this year. The extent and cruelty of the violence there was deeply shocking. Immediate international attention was urged to help Sierra Leone overcome the legacy of its conflict and re-establish a culture of human rights. In particular, the Office of the High Commissioner pledged support for the decisions to set up an independent national human-rights institution and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Office would continue to engage with Sierra Leone in the post-conflict period by making available experts to assist in the establishment of these two institutions and to help with technical cooperation in other ways.
The Subcommission had a very important part to play. The Subcommission had recorded some impressive achievements which had showed that it could be a vital engine of the development of the human-rights activities of the United Nations, in particular in the field of standard setting. An example was the draft resolution on the rights of indigenous peoples which was now pending before the Commission on Human Rights. The Subcommission had also played an important role in preparing the basis for the creation of thematic mechanisms of the Commission. The Subcommission was the originator of the Special Rapporteurs on freedom of information and expression, on the independence of the judiciary, on religious intolerance and on racism. The establishment of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances as well as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention could be traced to the Subcommission.
RIBOT HATANO, Chairperson of the Subcommission, said the first problem to be addressed was the implementation of various human-rights conventions. The United Nations system as a whole, including the Subcommission, had in the past been very successful in setting standards in the field of human rights. In reality, however, the conventions had not been satisfactorily implemented, and States parties had not complied fully with their provisions. Examples of this were the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that on Torture. Children’s rights were frequently overlooked still, and torture was systematically practised today by 134 Governments, many of which were parties to the Convention against Torture. It was imperative to promote and secure the full implementation of existing human-rights instruments both by Governments and non-governmental groups in the years to come.
The second problem was related to “non-State” actors in international society. The contribution made by NGOs, notably those having consultative status with ECOSOC, was enormous. They were the main source of information about human-rights violations in various countries and regions. Not only the Subcommission but the United Nations as a whole would have to depend even more upon NGOs in the future. However, some questions remained to be discussed and settled as soon as possible. Big private industries and enterprises, many of which were “transnational”, should be recognized as new “non-State actors” in international society, in parallel with traditional NGOs, since their cooperation, and sometimes their restraint, was indispensable to the solution of human-rights problems.
A third problem was to minimize the conflict between human rights themselves. It was often said that there could be or should be no “priority” among human rights. In fact, however, a conflict occasionally occured between two or more human-rights provisions. It was foreseeable that this sort of conflict would take place more often in the future. There was a need to find the ways and means to solve this touchy problem of “priority” or even “hierarchy among different human rights”. Much work, in many areas, remained to be done.
ANNE ANDERSON, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said those who were in Geneva were truly the privileged few. The millions of people whose lives were lived out in pain and poverty were a kind of invisible presence in the room, reminding everyone of why they were here and the seriousness with which the Subcommission’s work needed to be approached.
The terms of her invitation to speak today were quite explicit. The resolution adopted by the Commission invited the chairperson to address the Subcommission on the debate which had taken place at the Commission. There was not an extensive debate. Four governments spoke and there were seven NGO interventions. While valid and thoughtful points were made by a number of contributors, the rather short debate meant that the Commission did not have the thorough and detailed exchange that might have been beneficial to the Subcommission. However, even if the general debate was rather thin, the
resolution adopted on the work of the Subcommission was a cogent and substantive one. Any perceptive reading of this resolution would indicate that a mixed message was being sent. On the one hand, there was genuine recognition of what was being achieved and the efforts being made by the Subcommission to improve its work. On the other hand, it was fairly clear that the Commission felt there was significant scope for further improvement.
The Subcommission no doubt had its own sense of guiding themes for this session. But perhaps the idea of taking responsibility could have some application here, too. All the various parts of the United Nations human-rights machinery had their different and distinct roles -- the task for everybody was to try to do the right thing within the relevant area of responsibility. It was a task that needed both dedication and discipline -- two qualities that were not always easiest to reconcile. But that was the effort required of everybody if human rights causes were truly to be served.
Tags
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: